News

Case Summaries

Constitutional Law

[08/27] Ramirez v. Knoulton
In a suit alleging excessive force by defendant-police officer for shooting plaintiff during his arrest, denial of summary judgment to defendant is reversed where defendant acted reasonably in deciding to use deadly force, and no constitutional violation therefore occurred.

[08/27] Byrd v. Dressel
In an action brought by a group of homeowners and community organizations seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against a city, employees, and developers who remodel and convert private homes into student residences, a judgment against plaintiffs is affirmed where: 1) case precedent does not categorically preclude due process challenges to impermissible governmental action that deprives a person of real property; 2) however, under ordinary Due Process Clause jurisprudence, plaintiff failed to state a claim, notwithstanding it's understandable concerns about the aesthetics and ambiance of the neighborhood; and 3) claims under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and defendant-city's municipal code also failed.

[08/27] Mendez v. County of San Bernardino
In a suit against a city, county, sheriff's department and various individual defendants under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 arising from the aftermath of an officer-involved shooting that resulted in the death of plaintiff's deaf-mute son, various rulings against plaintiff before and after she prevailed in a jury trial are affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) there was no error as to jury instruction on plaintiff's emotional damages; 2) reduction of the punitive damages award was proper as it was excessive as a matter of due process; 3) summary judgment on a state law negligent training claim was proper; 4) an order denying plaintiff all fees and costs required vacatur and a remand for a determination of a reasonable award; 5) a sanctions order had to be vacated where the district court did not make a requisite bad faith finding; and 6) reassignment to a different judge was not warranted.

[08/27] Kozisek v. Couty of Seward
In an employment discrimination and civil rights case, summary judgment for defendants-county and county board chairman is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case under the Americans with Disability Act; 2) for purposes of a First Amendment claim, plaintiff's speech was not protected, and regardless, he failed to show a connection between his speech and his termination; and 3) a due process claim failed.

[08/26] Kreutzer v. City & County of San Francisco
Judgment ordering employer to reinstate a former exempt employee into a non-exempt position is reversed where: 1) a government employee hired into a position expressly classified as exempt from civil service is not entitled to the protections of the civil service system upon the employee's release from the position, even if a court finds that, based on the duties of the position, it should not have been classified as exempt; and 2) when a government employee is released from employment for reasons characterized only as non-disciplinary, and not otherwise publicly disclosed, the employee's liberty interest in reputation has not been infringed, and the employee is entitled to no relief.

[08/26] Wisconsin Cent., Ltd. v. Shannon
In a suit by a railroad seeking a declaratory judgment that state overtime provisions were preempted by federal law, summary judgment for plaintiff and determination that federal law preempted the state statute are affirmed where: 1) plaintiff's claim that the state labor agency's investigation and enforcement of state overtime law was preempted by the federal Railway Labor Act was not ripe for consideration; and 2) field preemption applied in light of the comprehensive federal regulation of the railways.

[08/26] Argyropoulos v. City of Alton
In a suit alleging sexual harassment, retaliation, and 42 U.S.C. section 1983 violations for city's termination of plaintiff-city employee, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff's illegal eavesdropping on her supervisors was not a protected activity for purposes of her retaliation claim; 2) plaintiff produced no other evidence that she engaged in a protected activity and was terminated as a result; 3) plaintiff produced no evidence under the indirect method of proof that she was performing her job in a satisfactory manner, or that she was treated differently from similarly-situated employees; 4) plaintiff could not rebut defendant's proffered, non-discriminatory reason for terminating her; and 5) plaintiff waived her other arguments on appeal.

[08/26] "R" Best Produce, Inc. v. DiSapio
In a contract dispute brought under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act of 1930 (PACA) regarding the sale of fruits and vegetables, order denying reconsideration is vacated and remanded where the appellant's claim that the default judgment should have been vacated for lack of personal jurisdiction raises unresolved factual errors.

More...

Criminal Law & Procedure

[08/27] US v. Allen
A conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm and a felon in possession of ammunition is affirmed over claims that: 1) the district court erred in permitting two witnesses to be improperly impeached; and 2) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction.

[08/27] US v. Hogan
A conviction and sentence for conspiracy to distribute meth, possession with intent to distribute meth, and distribution of meth, is affirmed over claims that the district court erred in denying his motions to suppress and for acquittal, and in sentencing him to 188 months' imprisonment.

[08/27] US v. Espinosa
A sentence for drug- and firearm-related offenses is affirmed over defendant's claim that the district court erred when, for purposes of determining the advisory sentencing range, it grouped only conspiracy and manufacturing counts, but not firearms counts.

[08/27] US v. Wessels
In a case wherein defendant was convicted and sentenced for unauthorized use of a credit card, and later had her supervised release revoked and was sentenced again, the judgment is affirmed over a Fifth Amendment due process challenge.

[08/27] US v. Azure
Revocation of defendant's supervised release and imposition of a 24-month sentence are affirmed over claims that the judgment of the district court should be vacated and the case remanded because: 1) the magistrate judge lacked jurisdiction to conduct the revocation hearing; 2) the district court failed to undertake the requisite de novo review of the entire record; 3) defendant was not present at the time the district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and sentenced him; and 4) his sentence was unconstitutionally imposed to punish him for the offense underlying his revocation, rather than for his original offense.

[08/27] US v. Wright
A conviction and sentence for aggravated sexual abuse of a child is affirmed over claims of error regarding: 1) subject matter jurisdiction; 2) the sufficiency of the evidence on an attempted aggravated sexual assault conviction; 3) constructive amendment to the indictment; 4) Jencks Act violation; 5) erroneous admission of hearsay evidence; 6) erroneous admission of leading questions; and 7) sentencing issues.

[08/27] US v. Yelaun
Conviction and sentence for federal fraud related offenses committed during a scheme to collect insurance payments for medical tests is affirmed over claims of error that: 1) certain trial testimony was admitted in error; 2) there was a variance between the indictment's count 43, which charged defendant with conspiracy to commit money laundering, and the proof at trial; and 3) the judged erred in calculating defendant's sentence according to two sentence enhancements.

[08/27] US v. Sanchez-Badillo
Convictions and sentences for conspiring to distribute heroin, cocaine, cocaine base, and marijuana are affirmed over claims of error that: 1) jury's conspiracy verdict was not supported by evidence; 2) trial court made sentencing errors; 3) evidence was insufficient to support jury's verdict against one of the defendants on weapons charges and prosecutorial misconduct entitles him to a new trial; and 4) trial judge made impermissible comments in the jury's presence and defendant was denied effective assistance of counsel.

More...

Evidence

[08/27] US v. Allen
A conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm and a felon in possession of ammunition is affirmed over claims that: 1) the district court erred in permitting two witnesses to be improperly impeached; and 2) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction.

[08/27] US v. Hogan
A conviction and sentence for conspiracy to distribute meth, possession with intent to distribute meth, and distribution of meth, is affirmed over claims that the district court erred in denying his motions to suppress and for acquittal, and in sentencing him to 188 months' imprisonment.

[08/27] US v. Espinosa
A sentence for drug- and firearm-related offenses is affirmed over defendant's claim that the district court erred when, for purposes of determining the advisory sentencing range, it grouped only conspiracy and manufacturing counts, but not firearms counts.

[08/27] US v. Wessels
In a case wherein defendant was convicted and sentenced for unauthorized use of a credit card, and later had her supervised release revoked and was sentenced again, the judgment is affirmed over a Fifth Amendment due process challenge.

[08/27] US v. Azure
Revocation of defendant's supervised release and imposition of a 24-month sentence are affirmed over claims that the judgment of the district court should be vacated and the case remanded because: 1) the magistrate judge lacked jurisdiction to conduct the revocation hearing; 2) the district court failed to undertake the requisite de novo review of the entire record; 3) defendant was not present at the time the district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and sentenced him; and 4) his sentence was unconstitutionally imposed to punish him for the offense underlying his revocation, rather than for his original offense.

[08/27] US v. Wright
A conviction and sentence for aggravated sexual abuse of a child is affirmed over claims of error regarding: 1) subject matter jurisdiction; 2) the sufficiency of the evidence on an attempted aggravated sexual assault conviction; 3) constructive amendment to the indictment; 4) Jencks Act violation; 5) erroneous admission of hearsay evidence; 6) erroneous admission of leading questions; and 7) sentencing issues.

[08/27] Datau v. Mukasey
In an action brought by a native and citizen of Indonesia claiming she experienced persecution based on her Christian beliefs and the incorrect perception that she is ethnically Chinese, petition to review decision denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) is denied over claims of error that: 1) Board of Immigration Appeals' decision lacks support because it is based, in part, on the IJ's unclear credibility judgments; 2) petitioner presented substantial evidence of both past persecution and the likelihood that she would be subject to future persecution if forced to return to Indonesia; and 3) petitioner established grounds for withholding removal and protection under CAT.

[08/27] US v. Yelaun
Conviction and sentence for federal fraud related offenses committed during a scheme to collect insurance payments for medical tests is affirmed over claims of error that: 1) certain trial testimony was admitted in error; 2) there was a variance between the indictment's count 43, which charged defendant with conspiracy to commit money laundering, and the proof at trial; and 3) the judged erred in calculating defendant's sentence according to two sentence enhancements.

More...